header-logo header-logo

13 November 2019
Issue: 7864 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Charities , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

2019 pro bono winners celebrated

Migration was a major theme at the annual awards of Advocate, the charity that organises pro bono work by barristers.

Two barristers from Doughty Street shared the International Pro Bono Barrister of the Year award: Jennifer Robinson for her advice in relation to the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Istanbul; and Jelia Sane for her work with Safe Passage, a charity advising asylum seekers.

Anthony Metzer QC of Goldsmith Chambers won Pro Bono QC of the Year for a case where a Netherlands resident was refused access to the UK. Garden Court’s Shu Shin Luh won Junior Pro Bono Barrister of the Year for her work challenging the cuts to weekly subsistence paid to victims of trafficking.

The ceremony was sponsored by LexisNexis and hosted by Mr Justice Knowles.

Judging panel chair Lord Goldsmith QC said: ‘I never fail to be moved reading through the Advocate award applications.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll